Download - Smart eDA - planning.mackay.qld.gov.au€¦ · YOUR REF: N/A OUR PROJECT JOB NUMBER: GEO137602-B For Stephen & Kimberley Heremia 410 Eversleigh Road Alligator Creek Qld 4737 SITE

Smart eDA (http://www.smarteda.qld.gov.au) Page of 1 1 December 22, 2015, 08:12 AM

Initiator: RPS Australia East Pty Ltd Recipient: Mackay Regional Council

Communication sent: 20151221 Appendix E - STASlope Stability Assessment Report21/12/2015 3:53:52 PM

Smart eDA

Smart eDA ID: , Your Reference ID: 1446602210992 DA-2015-185

History detail

Description Fiona Smith (Mackay) sent a communication.

Recipients Mackay Regional Council

CommentsAmended App E now contains both the Slope test and the Soil test. Page 6 of 33identifies their findings in 5.3 Risk Assessment as a "Low".

Attachments

(Upload) 20151221 Appendix E - STA Slope Stability Assessment Report:

View

sarahwe

Received (Manual Date)

Appendix E

STA Slope Stability Assessment Report

Slope Stability Assessment Report

DATE: 21st of December, 2015

YOUR REF: N/A OUR PROJECT JOB NUMBER: GEO137602-B

ForStephen & Kimberley Heremia

410 Eversleigh RoadAlligator Creek Qld 4737

SITE ADDRESS - Lot 3 on RP840766 (No.410) Eversleigh Road, Alligator Creek

BRISBANE (NORTH)(Head Office)241 Milton RoadMILTON, Qld 4064

Postal AddressPO Box 2629TOOWONG Qld 4066

Ph: 07 3071 7444Fax: 07 3876 2763

BRISBANE (SOUTH)1821 Ipswich RoadROCKLEA, Qld 4106

Ph: 07 3071 7444Fax: 07 3876 2763

GOLD COAST1/486 Scottsdale DriveVARSITY LAKES, Qld 4227

Ph: 07 5522 1995Fax: 07 5522 1776

MACKAYPO Box 125BUSASIA, Qld 4750

Ph: 07 4960 4800Fax: 07 3876 2763

NEWCASTLEUnit 3, 10 Pippita CloseBERESFIELD, NSW 2322

Ph: 02 4032 6450Fax: 07 3876 2763

ROCKHAMPTONShop 4, 99 Musgrave StreetBERSERKER, Qld 4701

Ph: 07 4994 9810Fax: 07 3876 2763

TOWNSVILLEUnit 1, 167 Denham StreetTOWNSVILLE, Qld 4810

Ph: 07 4766 8741Fax: 07 3876 2763

www.staconsulting.com.au

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Hillside Construction Guidelines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Stability of Retaining Structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Qualitative Terminology For Use in Assessing Risk to Property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7.0 CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.5 Erosion Control and Landscaping

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.4 Drainage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.3 Foundations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.2 Earthworks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.1 House Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.3 Risk Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.2 Hazard Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.1 Stability Assessment Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.0 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.5 Site Classification.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.4 Groundwater

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.3 Subsurface Conditions

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2 Field Work and Laboratory Testing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.1 Site Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.1 Qualifications of Responsible Firm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.0 SCOPE AND METHOD OF INVESTIGATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.0 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report represents the results of a geotechnical walk over assessment of stability investigation carriedout by STA Consulting Engineers on the 9th of December, 2015 at Lot 3 on RP840766 (No.410)Eversleigh Road, Alligator Creek.

2.0 SCOPE AND METHOD OF INVESTIGATIONS

The aim of this report was to assess the potential risk of slope instability or Landslide risk for the proposedresidential subdivision in it’s existing and post developed state.

The methodology adopted by STA Consulting Engineers in order to determine the Landslide risk for thissite was obtained incorporating the following criteria :-

Guidelines developed by the Australian Geomechanics Society (AGS), Landslide Risk Management,Volume 42 No. 1, March 2007.

Landslide Frequency Assessment in accordance with the report “A Method of Zoning LandslideHazards”, prepared by MacGregor and Taylor 2001.

A review of existing Hazard mapping (where available), aerial photographs and various publishedinformation to assist in identifying past activity.

A Field investigation in order to determine subsurface conditions.

A walkover survey to record surface indicators of slope instability and to assess the ground slope/sand general site conditions.

2.1 Qualifications of Responsible Firm

This report is prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer of Queensland (RPEQ) specialising ingeotechnical engineering.

3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

It is understood the proposed development at Lot 3 on RP840766 (No.410) Eversleigh Road, AlligatorCreek is to involve the subdivision of the established 2.31 hectare rural/ residential allotment to form twoindividual allotments 1.46 hectares and 0.8554 hectares respectively.

The larger of the two proposed allotments will be located to the rear of the site and will continue toaccommodate the existing residential dwelling and associated out buildings. The development for theproposed new allotment located to the front South Western aspect of the site will consist of a residentialconstruction. No further details on intended works to this allotment had been supplied at the time of writingthis report.

Page 3 of 33

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION

4.1 Site Description

At the time of the investigation the block had an existing dwelling and shed on it. The vegetationconsisted of grass and trees, the tested area had a gentle to moderate slope and the drainage was poorto moderate.

4.2 Fieldwork & Laboratory Testing

Two bore holes were undertaken across the site using a power auger drill rig mounted at the rear of a fourwheel drive ute to a maximum depth of 1300 mm. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (D.C.P) tests were alsoundertaken at the time of the site investigation.

The bore holes were drilled using solid flight augers fitted with a steel ‘V’ shaped bit or tungsten carbidebit.

An authorised representative from STA Consulting Engineers set out the bore holes locations fromexisting site features, directed sampling and logged bore hole profiles. Engineering logs of the bore holesare presented in Appendix A , together with Explanation Sheets defining the terms and symbols used inthe preparation of the logs.

Representative samples of residual soil was collected for the purpose of Laboratory testing. These testsinclude the following :-

Moisture Contents Liquid Limit (LL) Linear Shrinkage (LS) Shrink /Swell (Iss)

Results of the Laboratory tests are indicated under Appendix A - Soil Profile and Laboratory Results.


Reference to the Brisbane 1 : 250,000 Series Geological Sheet indicates that the site is predominatelyunderlain by the Campwyn Beds of the Upper Devonian - Lower Carboniferous periods comprising ofintermediate, basic and acid volcanics, siltstone, sandstone, conglomerate, limestone.

The ground conditions encountered were generally as follows :-

Bore Hole # 1 - a dry to moist and medium dense silty sand topsoil overlying a dry and weakextremely weathered rock with some clay fines evident, becoming moderately strong with depth. Borehole terminated due to rock refusal at 1.3 metres.

Bore Hole # 2 - a dry to moist and medium dense silty sand topsoil overlying a dry and weakextremely weathered rock with some clay fines evident, becoming moderately strong with depth. Borehole terminated due to rock refusal at 1.0 metres.

Note : There is a danger that by simplifying the geological conditions as described above, small-scalevariations that may have significant engineering implications can be overlooked. Where specificinformation is required, the reader should in all instances refer to the bore hole logs in Section 3 of thisreport.

Where the drill rig was unable to penetrate the rock, it is anticipated that the bearing capacity of the rock isin excess of 400 kPa. 4.4 Groundwater

Groundwater was not identified at the time of the subsurface investigation. However seepage is likely atthe soil/ rock interface after prolonged periods of rain.

Page 4 of 33

4.5 Site Classification

After assessing the laboratory test results, on site conditions and surrounding conditions in accordancewith AS 2870. This site has been classified: Class “S”.

5.0 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT

5.1 Stability Walkover Assessment Findings

As requested a visual walk over inspection for assessment of stability was undertaken at Lot 3 onRP840766 (No.410) Eversleigh Road, Alligator Creek.

The site under review was identified as being an established rural residential type allotment regionallylocated approximately 24 kilometres South East of the Mackay City centre. The block is adjoined bysimilar rural residential allotments to the North West and North East, all surrounded by established sugarcane crops. The existing residential dwelling is located to the rear North Western aspect of the site withthe proposed subdivision intended to the South Western aspect of the site.

At the time of the walk over assessment, the following observations were made :-

Topographically the area of the proposed new allotment (Proposed Lot 31) is positionedpredominately Lower slope of a small ridge line projecting North/ South.

The land shape is considered Planar/ Convex.

For the first 20 metres into the site from the road, the natural slope is considered gentle rising uptowards the rear at 3 - 4 degrees. At this point the grade increases to become moderate rising atapproximately 10 degrees up to the existing vegetation line, approximately 50 metres set back fromthe road. Above this area the natural grade becomes steep, increasing to 20 degrees for theremainder of the slope up to the existing driveway and established residence to the rear.

An existing bitumen driveway enters the site from the Southern corner traversing across the sitetowards the rear Northern corner up to the established residence. The existing driveway runs paralleland directly above the intended new boundary line for the subdivision. There is an existing open earthspoon drain located along the Northern high side of the driveway, with a number of discharge pointsvia concrete pipes or swale drains directing surface flows back towards the proposed subdividedallotment. Minimal erosion and scour evident.

Vegetation on and surrounding the site consists of grasses, scrub and mature trees. Indicators of pastinstability during the life span of this vegetation was not clearly evident. This may include patterns oftrees leaning on angles or trees exhibiting Basel curvature which may be indicative of hillside creep.

No Tension cracks were observed on or across the slope.

The site is surrounded by a mix of existing residential construction including slab on ground, split leveland pole home type construction. From visual inspection only, all appear to be performing asintended.

Indicators of instability from surrounding man made structures were not identified. This includes but isnot limited to signs of rotation or stress within the existing bitumen driveway, water/ sewerage tanks,fence posts and or the performance of existing habitable dwelling etc....

Page 5 of 33

5.2 Hazard Identification

A Hazard is defined as a condition with the potential for causing an undesirable consequence (thelandslide).

The hazard assessment given in this report is consistent with the procedures outlined in the report, “AMethod of Zoning Landslide Hazards” by MacGregor and Taylor, 2001. The following major site features have been considered in determining a likelihood estimate or Frequency Analysis in turn, the potentialHazard of the site in order of undertaking the final risk assessment for the proposed building zone andimmediate surrounds :

- Evidence of Past Forms of Instability

- Evidence of Groundwater- Concentration of Surface Water

- Material Strength- Local Area Geology

- The Natural Slope Shape/ Formation- The Natural Slope Angle

From the results of studies undertaken by SMEC in similar terrain a correlation between relative frequencyand potential Hazard Rating has been determined as presented in the following table :-

We have completed a Landslide Frequency Analysis and as an opinion, the hazard of such is provisionallyconsidered as being Moderate.

5.3 Risk Assessment

Reviewing the intended development for this site , the elements considered within the risk assessment areas follows :

The intended/ proposed buildings and associated out buildings. Persons or Occupants on site.

Taking into consideration the potential landslide hazard for the property incorporating the Guidelinesdeveloped by the Australian Geomechanics Society (AGS), Landslide Risk Management, Volume 42 No.1, March 2007 and the potential impacts to persons and or property within or directly adjoining theboundaries of the area assessed, based on our findings the final risk level determined for this site isconsidered "LOW" .

The residual risk level given is conditional on the risk mitigation measures outlined within this report beingfully implemented and maintained for the expected life of the structure.

The potential implications for the associated risk level are outlined within the table below :-

Accepted. Managed by routine procedures.VL (Very Low Risk)

Can be accepted. Treatment to maintain or reduce risk levels should bedefined.

L (Low Risk)

May be acceptable provided treatment plan is implemented to maintain orreduce risk levels.

M (Moderate Risk)

Detailed investigation, planning and implementation of treatment optionsessential to reduce risk to acceptable levels.

H (High Risk)

Extensive investigation, planning and implementation of treatment optionsessential to reduce risk to acceptable levels.

VH (Very High Risk)ImplicationsRisk Level

Table 2. Implications of Risk Level Classification Australian Geomechanics Society (AGS 2007).

Page 6 of 33

HAZARD RATING DESCRIPTION

VH (Very High Hazard)

H (High Hazard)

M (Moderate Hazard)

L (Low Hazard)

VL (Very Low Hazard)

The event is expected to occur.

The event will probably occur under adverse conditions.

The event could occur under adverse conditions.

The event might occur under very adverse conditions.

The event is conceivable but only under exceptional circumstances.

RELATIVE FREQUENCY

< 0.2

0.2 - 0.6

0.6 - 2.0

2.0 - 6.0

> 6.0

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS & RISK MITIGATION MEASURES

The area of the proposed structure has been defined as a Low Risk providing the followingrecommendations are implemented, managed and maintained for the expected life of the structure :-

6.1 House Design

As indicated by the client, the proposed development is to involve the subdivision of the established 2.31hectare rural/ residential allotment to form two individual allotments 1.46 hectares and 0.8554 hectaresrespectively.

The larger of the two proposed allotments will be located to the rear of the site and will continue toaccommodate the existing residential dwelling and associated out buildings. The development for theproposed new allotment located to the front South Western aspect of the site will consist of a residentialconstruction. No further details on intended works to this allotment had been supplied at the time of writingthis report.

STA Consulting Engineers are satisfied the site will support a typical form of residential constructionas prescribed in Australian Standard, AS2870-2011 ‘Residential Slabs and Footings’. Foundationsmust be designed by a suitably qualified Registered Professional Engineer Queensland (RPEQ).

Consideration must be given in adopting an appropriate construction type. It is the considered opinionof STA Consulting that the site is best suited to a pole home or split levelled type construction thusreducing the extent of operational works needed to accommodate the dwelling.

6.2 Earthworks

Retain the existing natural contours wherever possible. Large scale site cuts into the toe (base) of the existing natural slope should be avoided. Existing mature vegetation is to be maintained on the steep slopes above the nominated building

envelope. Large scale removal of this vegetation may instigate erosion and instability over time.

Cuts Minimise depth.

Taking into consideration the proposed nominated building envelope and its position at the base of thenatural slope, limited site cutting should be undertaken. Where site cutting is required, the cut battermust be supported using a engineered retaining wall. Exposed, unsupported cuts are to be avoided.

Where site cuts encroach onto the existing bitumen driveway, retaining walls must be incorporated,appropriately designed to accommodate for potential surcharge loads from vehicle movement above.

Spoon drains MUST be installed immediately up slope of all cut batters to capture and divert up slopewaters to a suitable outflow. All spoon drains must be maintained for the life of the structure.

Fills Minimise height.

Strip vegetation and topsoil and key/ bench the natural slope prior to filling. Use clean fill materials and compact to engineering standards. Batter to an appropriate slope or support with engineered retaining walls. For this site, exposed fill

batters are top be profiled no greater than 1V : 2H. The finished platform must not slope towards the filled embankment which will allow water to flow/

cascade over the exposed face. Ponding water on the platform must also be avoided. It isrecommended that the platform slope into the toe of the cut where a spoon drain is to be installed tocollect and divert water to a suitable outflow. All spoon drains must be maintained for the life of thestructure.

Re-vegetate exposed areas with shrubs, grasses and ground covers including cut and filled batters,preferably with plants indigenous to the local area.

Provide surface drainage and appropriate subsurface drainage. All earthworks to be carried out in accordance with the requirements of Australian Standard AS 3798 -

2007 Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments.

Page 7 of 33

6.3 Foundations

Key foundations within the existing natural moderately strong weathered rock. On site foundation inspections including footing, slab & retaining walls must be undertaken by a

suitably qualified and experienced Geotechnical Engineer.

6.4 Drainage

Surface

Provide drains at the top of all cut and fill slopes, including those retained. The discharge points from the existing driveway above may need to be revised to ensure

discharge does not occur above the nominated building envelope. Surface waters are to beappropriately directed off the slope and discharged to the front of the site via a permanent drain,preferably lined to prevent the ingress of surface waters and allow for simple long termmanagement.

Discharge to the street drainage at the front of the site. Provide and maintain general falls within drains to prevent blockage by siltation. Line spoon drains to minimise the infiltration of surface water and make drains flexible where

possible.

Subsurface

Provide filters around all subsurface drainage. Provide appropriate drainage behind ALL retaining structures. Use flexible pipelines with access for long-term maintenance. Prevent the inflow of surface water.

Waste Water & Storage Tanks

The site is located outside of a serviced area, therefore on site effluent treatment and disposal forwaste water will be required. From a stability perspective only, absorption trenches would beconsidered acceptable providing they are located below and clear of the proposed buildingfootprint. The preferred method of disposal is via surface irrigation. Any intended disposal area isto be located a min of 6 metres from the toe of any fill batter. Final design will need to bedetermined by a suitably qualified site and soil evaluator taking the above into consideration. STAConsulting has not been supplied with a disposal design to review or make reference.

Storage tanks should be watertight and adequately founded. Overflows are to be piped to asuitable outflow. Do not allow to simply dump onto ground surface at base of storage tanks.Overflow to be fanned onto the slope not concentrated to a single outflow.

6.5 Erosion Control & Landscape

Control erosion as this may lead to instability. Re-vegetate cleared areas with grasses, ground covers and shrubs, preferably with plants

indigenous to the local area.

Page 8 of 33

7.0 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it is our considered opinion, from a geotechnical viewpoint that the site is suitable forthe proposed subdivision that had been indicated by the client at the time of commissioning thisreport. This recommendation is subject to the implementation of the measures specified within this report.On site foundation inspections including footing, slab & retaining walls must be undertaken by asuitably qualified and experienced Geotechnical Engineer.

Thank you for entrusting us with this work, if we can be of any further assistance in this matter, pleaselet us know.

For and on behalf ofSTA Consulting Group Pty Ltd

Justin J Williamson Angelo IancuA.D. Civil Eng. Cert. Mining Eng B.Sc., (Civil) R.P.E.Q # 4425

Page 9 of 33

Justin

Initials 2

angelo

Angelo

APPENDICES

Page 10 of 33

APPENDIX A

Soil Profile and Laboratory Results

Page 11 of 33

STASO Aug 2013 Version A Project Job No. 137602

ClientStephen & Kimberley Heremia

410 Eversleigh Road SARINA 4737

Site Address410 EVERSLEIGH ROAD ALLIGATOR CREEK 4740

STASOD.2014-14-05 Page 12 of 33

STA CONSULTING ENGINEERSBrisbane North (Milton) (07) 3071 7444 Brisbane South (Rocklea) (07) 3071 7444 Gold Coast (07) 5522 1995 Mackay (07) 4960 4800

Townsville (07) 4766 8741 Rockhampton (07) 4994 9810 Newcastle (02) 4032 6450email: [email protected] webpage: www.staconsulting.com.au

Note : kPa value is allowable bearing pressure caculated in accordancewith paper 'Determination of allowable bearing pressure under small structures'by M.J Stockwell (June 1977)

D.C.P.:- Dynamic Cone PenetrometerN'q:- Allowable Bearing Capacity (kPa)PP:- Pocket Penetrometer Strength (kPa)U.T.P:- Unable to Penetrate Slope Direction

Terms :-

Section 3 - Bore Logs

This line represents the anticipated base level of therecommended founding material nominated on page 1of this report. This level is to be used as a gauge only.

Bore Log Sheet

Bore Hole # 1

SOIL DESCRIPTION

Drill Method: Power Auger

Project Job No. ES137602-B

Client: Stephen & Kimberly Heremia

Dep

th (

m)

Sam

ple

Lo

cati

on

Gro

un

dw

ater

Sym

bo

ls

Ex

ten

t o

f F

ill

Gra

ph

ic L

og

Sam

ple

Lo

cati

on

Gro

un

dw

ater

Sym

bo

ls

Ex

ten

t o

f F

ill

Gra

ph

ic L

og

D.C

.P b

low

s/ 1

00 m

m

PP

Val

ue

N'q

(kP

a )

Bore Hole # 2

SOIL DESCRIPTION


Dep

th (

m)

D.C

.P b

low

s/ 1

00 m

m

PP

Val

ue

N'q

(kP

a)

U.T.P.

U.T.P.

0

1.0

1.5

0.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

0

1.0

1.5

0.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Dry to Moist & Dense Dry to Moist & Dense

Dry & WeakDry & Weak

Dry & Moderately Strong


SILTY SAND SILTY SAND

EXTREMELY WEATHERED ROCKWEATHERED ROCK

(Grey) (Grey)

Bore Hole Refusal - 1.3 m Bore Hole Refusal - 1.0 m

(White Yellow)(White Yellow)

3445448

10

140

280

120

1014Some Clay Encountered




Site Address410 EVERSLEIGH ROAD ALLIGATOR CREEK4740 Page 13 of 33



Site Identification

Test Methods: AS1289 3.1.2 (liquid limit), 3.4.1(linear shrinkage), 7.1.1(shrink-swell)

SITE CLASSIFICATION SYMBOLS DESIGN Y'S RANGE

'A'

'S'

'M'

'H1'

'H2'

'E'

'P'

'- D'

0 < Ys

0 < Ys < 20

20 < Ys < 40

60 < Ys < 75

40 < Ys < 60

Ys > 75

N/A

N/A

Classification by characteristic surface movement as per AS2780-2011

Most sand and rock sites with little or no ground movement frommoisture changes.

Slightly reactive clay sites, which may experience only slight ground

Moderately reactive clay or silt sites, which may experience moderate ground

Highly reactive clay sites, which may experience high ground movement

Highly reactive clay sites, which may experience very high ground movement

Extremely reactive clay sites, which may experience extreme ground

movement from moisture changes


from moisture changes



Problem sites which generally have soils associated with uncontrolled fill,

For classes M, H1, H2 and E this further classification may be required, based

abnormal moisture conditions (trees), soft or collapsing soils, landslip etc..

GENERALISED DESCRIPTION(Guide Only)

Section 3 - Bore Logs & Site Identification

on the depth of expected moisture change. Applied to sites with deep-seatedmoisture changes characteristic of dry climates and corresponding to a designdepth of suction change (Hs), equal to or greater than 3 metres.

Sample Location:-

Depth of Sample:-

Liquid Limit:-

Linear Shrinkage:-

Laboratory Test Results

N/A

Iss:-

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Site Sketch ( Not to Scale )(All Dimensions Shown are Approximate Only)

Design Y's Range

Y's + Yt :- 0 to 20 mm

1. 2.

STREET

20 m 10 m

N/A

0 mm

< 20 mmCalculated Y's Value -

Calculated Y't Value - Y't - the calculated potential surface movement due to the tree inducedsuction change in addition to the normal design suction change.

Y's - characteristic surface movement determined on soil propertiesonly, does NOT include the effects of trees (refer Design Y's Range)

Est. Differential Settlement - of Level 1 Controlled Fill

The estimated differential settlement is the value by which Level 1 controlled fill may further displace and is generally proportionate to the variation in fill heights.

N/ANote: The estimated differential settlement values may be re-assessed if predicted settlement figuresare provided to STA Consulting Engineers from the company that undertook the fill certification.

Age of Level 1 -Controlled Fill

24 m

WIND CLASSIFICATION

An authorised representative of STA Consulting Engineers has visited the

above site and classified the area by using AS 4055.

WIND LOADING ASSESSMENT Not Requested

APPENDIX B

Landslide Frequency Analysis

Page 14 of 33

GEOLOGY: Campwyn Beds

Location: Lot 3 on RP840766 (No.410) EversleighRoad, Alligator Creek

1.Basic Frequency 0.004

2. Slope Angle

0.8MMore than 45 Degrees1.2HBetween 30 and 45 degrees0.8MBetween 15 and 30 degreesx0.5MBetween 5 and 15 Degrees0.1LLess than 5 degrees

FactorLevelArea

3. Slope Shape

1.5 HConcave0.9MConvexx0.9MPlanar0.7LCrest or ridge

FactorLevelArea

4. Area Geology

1MGranite rock0.9LHigh Grade Metamorphic rock1MLow Grade Metamorphic rock1MSedimentry Rock

1.1HVolcanic RockxFactorLevelArea

5. Material Strength

4VHColluvial Soil > 3m deep2VHColluvial Soil 1 - 3m deep

1.5HColluvial Soil < 1m deep1.5HResidual Soil > 3m deep0.9MResidual Soil 1 - 3m deepx0.5LResidual Soil < 1m deep0.1VLRock at Surface

FactorLevelArea

*The numerical factors allocation to these site features are

based on judgement and experience

Very High> 6High2.0 - 6.0

Moderate0.6 - 2.0Low0.2 - 0.6

Very Low< 0.2Hazard RatingRelative Frequency

GEOMORPHOLOGY:

6. Concentration of Surface water

1.5HLower Slopex1.2HMid Slope0.9MUpper Slope0.8MCrest0.7LRidge

FactorLevelArea

7. Evidence of Groundwater

3VHSubsurface Springs1.5HGenerally Wet0.9MMinor Moistnessx0.7LNone Apparent

FactorLevelArea

8. Evidence of Instability

10VHActive Instability5VHMajor Irregularity2VHMinor Irregularity

0.8LNo sign of instabilityxFactorLevelArea

Summary

0.76Relative Frequency (2x3x4x5x6x7x8)90.8Evidence of Instability80.9Evidence of ground water71.5Concentration of surface water60.9Material Strength51.1Area Geology40.9Slope Shape30.8Slope Angle2

Relative Frequency = 0.77

Area Frequency = 0.00308

Hazard Rating = Moderate

Page 15 of 33

APPENDIX C

Site Photographs

Page 16 of 33

of 33

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

of 33

Figure 4.

Figure 3.

APPENDIX D

Site Maps

Page 19 of 33

of 33

Figure 5. Google Image.

of 33

Figure 6. Registered Plan.

of 33

Figure 7. Proposed Subdivision Configuration.

of 33

Figure 8. Regional Geology - Mackay Sheet SF 55-8.

APPENDIX E

Qualitative Terminology for use in AssessingRisk to Property

(Appendix C AGS2007)

Page 24 of 33

APPENDIX F

Stability of Retaining Structures

Page 29 of 33

of 33

Stability of Retaining Structures

Geotechnical stability of all proposed retaining structures must be carried out against sliding,overturning and global slope instability. The retaining structures must also be stable againstbearing capacity failure (or excessive base settlements). Moreover, the retaining structure itselfmust be adequately designed against any potential structural failures such as flexural failure orshear failure.

Fig. 7: Typical retaining structure and the lateral earth pressure distributions

Figure 7 shows a typical retaining structure including lateral earth pressure distributions. Theretained soil behind the retaining structure will exert active lateral earth pressure if the retainingstructure allows some lateral movement; otherwise lateral earth pressure at rest (Ko condition)should be used during design and stability assessments. The soil in front of the wall will causepassive earth pressure, as shown in Fig. 7.

All development applications involving retaining structures must assess the geotechnical stabilityand factor of safety against the following:

a) Sliding caused by the active earth pressure and resistance by passive earth pressure andfrictional force at the base the retaining structure;

b) Overturning about the toe (point O in Fig. 7) as a result of driving moment caused by the activeearth pressure and resisting moment caused by the passive earth pressure, the self-weight of theretaining structure and weight of the retained soils behind the structure; and

c) Global slope instability considering a large slip circle passing through the underneath of theretaining structure and the retained soils.

The stability assessment shall ensure that all retaining structures will achieve a factor of safety(FOS) > 1.5 against sliding, overturning and global slope instability.

Referenced “Geotechnical Stability Assessment Guidelines JUNE 2007: Version 1.0 Gold CoastCity Council” Section 5.2 Page 19.

Pp=Passive earthpressure

Pa=Active earth pressure

B

O

APPENDIX G

Hillside Construction

Page 31 of 33

Good Hillside Construction Practice

AUSTRALIAN GEOGUIDE LR8 (CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE)

Page 32 of 33

Sensible development practices are required when building on hillsides, particularly if the hillside has more than a low riskof instability (GeoGuide LR7). Only building techniques intended to maintain, or reduce, the overall level of landslide riskshould be considered. Examples of good hillside construction practice are illustrated below.

WHY ARE THESE PRACTICES GOOD?

Cuttings -are supported by retaining walls (GeoGuide LR6). Retaining walls -are engineer designed to withstand thelateral earth pressures and surcharges expected, and include drains to prevent water pressures developing in the backfill.Where the ground slopes steeply down towards the high side of a retaining wall, the disturbing force (see GeoGuide LR6)can be two or more times that in level ground. Retaining walls must be designed taking these forces into account.

Roadways and parking areas -are paved and incorporate kerbs which prevent water discharging straight into thehillside (GeoGuide LR5).

Sewage -whether treated or not is either taken away in pipes or contained in properly founded tanks so it cannot soak into the ground. Surface water -from roofs and other hard surfaces is piped away to a suitable discharge point ratherthan being allowed to infiltrate into the ground. Preferably, the discharge point will be in a natural creek where groundwater exits, rather than enters, the ground. Shallow, lined, drains on the surface can fulfil the same purpose (GeoGuideLR5). Surface loads -are minimised. No fill embankments have been built. The house is a lightweight structure. Foundationloads have been taken down below the level at which a landslide is likely to occur and, preferably, to rock. This sort ofconstruction is probably not applicable to soil slopes (GeoGuide LR3). If you are uncertain whether your site has rocknear the surface, or is essentially a soil slope, you should engage a geotechnical practitioner to find out. Flexible structures -have been used because they can tolerate a certain amount of movement with minimal signs of distress and maintain their functionality. Vegetation clearance -on soil slopes has been kept to a reasonable minimum.Trees, and to a lesser extent smaller vegetation, take large quantities of water out of the ground every day. This lowersthe ground water table, which in turn helps to maintain the stability of the slope. Large scale clearing can result in a rise inwater table with a consequent increase in the likelihood of a landslide (GeoGuide LR5). An exception may have to bemade to this rule on steep rock slopes where trees have little effect on the water table, but their roots pose a landslidehazard by dislodging boulders. Possible effects of ignoring good construction practices are illustrated on page 2. Unfortunately, these poor constructionpractices are not as unusual as you might think and are often chosen because, on the face of it, they will save thedeveloper, or owner, money. You should not lose sight of the fact that the cost and anguish associated with any one ofthe disasters illustrated, is likely to more than wipe out any apparent savings at the outset.

Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007

ADOPT GOOD PRACTICE ON HILLSIDE SITES

Poor Hillside Construction Practice

Page 33 of 33

Retaining walls -have been avoided, to minimise cost, and hand placed rock walls used instead. Without applyingengineering design principles, the walls have failed to provide the required support to the ground and have failed,creating a very dangerous situation.

Cut and fill -has been used to balance earthworks quantities and level the site leaving unstable cut faces and addedlarge surface loads to the ground. Failure to compact the fill properly has led to settlement, which will probably continuefor several years after completion. The house and pool have been built on the fill and have settled with it and cracked.Leakage from the cracked pool and the applied surface loads from the fill have combined to cause landslides.

AUSTRALIAN GEOGUIDE LR8 (CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE)

of the resulting ground movements, but it has also become involved in a man-made landslide. Soak-away drainage -hasbeen used for sewage and surface water run-off from roofs and pavements. This water soaks into the ground and raisesthe water table (GeoGuide LR5). Subsoil drains that run along the contours should be avoided for the same reason. If feltnecessary, subsoil drains should run steeply downhill in a chevron, or herring bone, pattern. This may conflict with therequirements for effluent and surface water disposal (GeoGuide LR9) and if so, you will need to seek professional advice.

Rock debris -from landslides higher up on the slope seems likely to pass through the site. Such locations are oftenreferred to by geotechnical practitioners as "debris flow paths". Rock is normally even denser than ordinary fill, so evenquite modest boulders are likely to weigh many tonnes and do a lot of damage once they start to roll. Boulders have beenknown to travel hundreds of metres downhill leaving behind a trail of destruction. Vegetation -has been completely cleared, leading to a possible rise in the water table and increased landslide risk(GeoGuide LR5).

DON'T CUT CORNERS ON HILLSIDE SITES -OBTAIN ADVICE FROM A GEOTECHNICAL PRACTITIONER

More information relevant to your particular situation may be found in other Australian GeoGuides:

Roadways and parking areas -are unsurfaced and lack proper table drains (gutters) causing surface water to pond and soak intothe ground.

WHY ARE THESE PRACTICES POOR?

The Australian GeoGuides (LR series) are a set of publications intended for property owners; local councils; planning authorities;developers; insurers; lawyers and, in fact, anyone who lives with, or has an interest in, a natural or engineered slope, a cutting, or anexcavation. They are intended to help you understand why slopes and retaining structures can be a hazard and what can be done withappropriate professional advice and local council approval (if required) to remove, reduce, or minimise the risk they represent. TheGeoGuides have been prepared by the Australian Geomechanics Society, a specialist technical society within Engineers Australia, thenational peak body for all engineering disciplines in Australia, whose members are professional geotechnical engineers and engineeringgeologists with a particular interest in ground engineering. The GeoGuides have been funded under the Australian governments’National Disaster Mitigation Program.

A heavy, rigid, house -has been built on shallow, conventional, footings. Not only has the brickwork cracked because

Australian Geomechanics Vol 42 No 1 March 2007

Soil Investigation Report

Prepared For

Stephen & Kimberley Heremia410 Eversleigh Road SARINA 4737

SITE ADDRESS - 410 EVERSLEIGH ROAD ALLIGATOR CREEK 4740

Local Authority - MACKAY REGIONAL

Date : 15 November 2015OUR PROJECT JOB NUMBER: 137602

Copyright STA Consulting Engineers. This report is the copyright of STA Consulting Engineers. This report and theinformation contained in it should only be relied upon by the client where this report is an original and not a copy. This report is providedsubject to the Disclaimer set out in Section Six.

STASOD.2014-14-05

BRISBANE (NORTH)(Head Office)241 Milton RoadMILTON, Qld 4064

Postal AddressPO Box 2629TOOWONG Qld 4066

Ph: 07 3071 7444Fax: 07 3876 2763

BRISBANE (SOUTH)1821 Ipswich RoadROCKLEA, Qld 4106

Ph: 07 3071 7444Fax: 07 3876 2763

GOLD COAST1/486 Scottsdale DriveVARSITY LAKES, Qld 4227

Ph: 07 5522 1995Fax: 07 5522 1776

NEWCASTLEUnit 3 Pippita CloseBERESFIELD, NSW 2322

Ph: 02 4032 6450Fax: 07 3876 2763

ROCKHAMPTONShop 4, 99 Musgrave StreetBERSERKER, Qld 4701

Ph: 07 4994 9810Fax: 07 3876 2763

MACKAYRural View LPO Box 125BUSASIA, Qld 4750

Ph: 07 4960 4800Fax: 07 3876 2763

TOWNSVILLEUnit 1, 167 - 181 Denham StreetPO Box 779 Townsville, Qld 4810

Ph: 07 4766 8741Fax: 07 3876 2763

Section 1 - ............................................ Introduction

1.01 ...................................................... Client Supplied Information

1.02 ...................................................... Site Classification Criteria

Section 2 - ............................................ Findings

2.01 ...................................................... Site Description & Regional Geology

2.02 ...................................................... Fieldwork & Laboratory Testing

2.03 ...................................................... Subsurface Conditions

2.04 ...................................................... Groundwater

2.05 ...................................................... Site Classification

2.06 ...................................................... Comments and Recommendations

Section 3 -............................................. Soil Profile, Laboratory Results, Site Identificationand Wind Rating Assessment

Section 4 - ............................................ Glossary of Terms

Section 5 - ............................................ Appendix

5.01 ...................................................... Soil test / Report Parameters

5.02 ...................................................... Site Class & Potential Surface Movement

5.03 ...................................................... Field & Laboratory Procedures

5.04 ...................................................... Site Maintenance

5.05 ...................................................... Sub Surface Mining / Slope Stability

5.06 ...................................................... Site Drainage

5.07 ...................................................... Fill Material & Compaction

5.08 ...................................................... Existing / Proposed Services

5.09 ...................................................... Batter Angles for Embankments

Section 6 - ............................................ Disclaimer

Table of Contents

Our project job number:137602 Page 2 of 13 STASO Aug 2013 Version A

STASOD.2014-14-05

STA Consulting Engineers have been commissioned by Stephen & Kimberley Heremia to undertake a soil testand site investigation in order to determine a site classification in accordance with AS 2870 Residential Slabsand Footings. Unless otherwise stated, the scope of this commission is limited to obtaining sufficient informationto enable a site classification to be made, collect information on the natural soil profiles observed, determine thebearing strength of the soils, identify the presence and depth of fill material, determine the soils reactivity andcalculate the effects of trees where required

This commission does not extend to the testing of stockpiled materials stored on site, fill certification, or thetesting of sub grade materials for pavement design. Whilst some comment may be made regarding foundations,the final design criteria is to be specified by the designing engineer.

1.01 - QBCC Subsidence Policy

NOTE: Under QBCC subsidence policy the following indicates the required information that is to besupplied and the information that has been supplied to the engineer prior to site investigation. :-

YES Property Description and site address

YES Evidence to ensure site is correct

NO The footprint of the proposed building and an indication of platform levels.

NOTE: "Site Classification - Under the QBCC subsidence policy we the engineers confirm the following :-

YES The engineer or a representative of STA Consulting has visited the site

YES The soil testing has been undertaken by a Registered Professional Engineer in Queensland.

YES The minimum of two (2) bore holes have been located over the proposed footprint of the

building and below the final platform level.

YES Soil samples have been taken for the purpose of laboratory testing where required.

YES A laboratory test and a soil report have been obtained for the design engineer.

STA Consulting Engineers confirms from an engineering perspective, compliance with the engineer’sobligations in the QBCC Subsidence Policy for the below mentioned items, subject only to:-

1. The below mentioned items were assessed at the time the site investigation.

2. The builder, in accordance with the QBCC Subsidence Policy has met all the requirements and

supplied all relevant searches.

NOTE: Abnormal Site Conditions - Under QBCC subsidence policy we the engineers acknowledge thefollowing :-

Soft soil - such as uncontrolled fill or development fill sites including soft clay or silt or loose sand. (Bearing

capacity less than 100 kPa );

Landslip

Mine Subsidence and collapsing soils

Soils subject to erosion

Reactive sites subject to abnormal moisture conditions

Sites that cannot be classified otherwiseNOTE: Under QBCC subsidence policy we the engineers confirm the following check list for AbnormalMoisture Conditions

Recent removal of an existing building structure

Unusual moisture conditions caused by drains, channels, ponds, dams or tanks which are to be maintainedor removed from the site. Canal developments that have deep seated clays are an example where abnormal

moisture conditions may prevail over time.

Removal of large trees prior to construction

Trees located to close to footings (including trees on adjoining sites within the relevant distance of themature height of the tree from the building depending on site classification).

1.02 - Site Classification CriteriaThis soil test has been prepared by reference to;

Site Classification Criteria :AS 1289 Methods of testing soils for engineering purposes

AS 1726 Site Investigation Code

AS 2870 Classification of site in accordance with "Residential Slab & Footings"

AS 3798 Guidelines on earthworks for commercial and residential development

Section 1 - Introduction


STASOD.2014-14-05

2.01 Site Description

At the time of the investigation the block had an existing dwelling on it. The vegetation consisted of grass, scrub and trees, the tested area had a gentle to moderate slope and the drainage was poor tomoderate.

2.02 Fieldwork & Laboratory Testing

Two bore holes were undertaken across the site using a power auger drill rig mounted at the rear of afour wheel drive ute to a maximum depth of 1300mm. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (D.C.P) tests undertaken at the time of the site investigation.

The bore holes were drilled using solid flight augers fitted with a steel V shaped bit or tungstencarbide bit

An authorised representative from STA Consulting Engineers set out the bore holes locations fromexisting site features, directed sampling and logged bore hole profiles. Engineering logs of the boreholes are presented in Section 3 , together with Explanation Sheets defining the terms and symbolsused in the preparation of the logs.

Representative samples of residual soil was collected for the purpose of Laboratory testing. Thesetests include the following :-

Moisture Contents Liquid Limit (LL) Linear Shrinkage (LS) Shrink /Swell (Iss)

Results of the Laboratory tests are indicated under Section 3.0 Soil Profile and Laboratory Results.


The ground conditions encountered were generally a silty sand over a weathered rock. Note : There is a danger that by simplifying the geological conditions as described above, small-scalevariations that may have significant engineering implications can be overlooked. Where specificinformation is required, the reader should in all instances refer to the bore hole logs in Section 3 ofthis report.

Where the drill rig was unable to penetrate the rock, it is anticipated that the bearing capacity of therock is in excess of 400 kPa.

Section 2 - Findings


STASOD.2014-14-05

2.05 Site Classification

After assessing the laboratory test results, on site conditions and surrounding conditions inaccordance with AS 2870. This site has been classified: Class S

If the existing trees on this site are to be removed, A secondary soiltest must be carried out after theexisting house and trees are removed and the disturbed ground is compacted to the relevantAustralian Standards.

This site is subject to a slope stability assessments prepared by STA Consulting Engineersand should be read in conjunction with this report.

2.06 Comments and Recommendations (Detailed Plans Not Supplied))

For a residential dwelling as defined under AS 2870 we are of the considered opinion that footingsdesigned to suit a {Class " S "} classification, using engineering principles would be suitable on thissite.

Where any existing trees or structures are removed from the building pad area, the voids created bytheir removal, must be excavated, back filled and compacted with suitable material. All fill is to beplaced in a controlled manner, benching of the natural ground to assist in the placing of the fill and tokey the fill to the dense/stiff ground is to be carried out in a accordance with A.S. 3798. When earthworks are carried out, due care must be taken not to affect the structural integrity or placeany additional surcharge on any existing structures.

Complete field and laboratory test results are presented in Section 3 of this report. Please note thatthe test hole locations, and slope are estimations only and should not be taken as being absolute.

To ensure correct footing and or slab construction it is essential that a copy of this report and anyrelevant addendums (where applicable) are supplied to the concretor in full prior to their preparation.It is also advisable that such documentation is available on site for reference by the concretors andnominated inspectors.

We would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to provide this service to you and should youwish to contact us again please do so.

Yours faithfullySTA CONSULTING ENGINEERS

Angelo Iancu BSc PEngMIE Aust (Civil, Structural) AGS RPEQ 4425

Section 2 - Findings


STASOD.2014-14-05

justin

Jud Sig




Site Address410 EVERSLEIGH ROAD ALLIGATOR CREEK 4740

STASOD.2014-14-05 Page 6 of 13



Note : kPa value is allowable bearing pressure caculated in accordancewith paper 'Determination of allowable bearing pressure under small structures'by M.J Stockwell (June 1977)

D.C.P.:- Dynamic Cone PenetrometerN'q:- Allowable Bearing Capacity (kPa)PP:- Pocket Penetrometer Strength (kPa)U.T.P:- Unable to Penetrate Slope Direction

Terms :-

Section 3 - Bore Logs

This line represents the anticipated base level of therecommended founding material nominated on page 1of this report. This level is to be used as a gauge only.

Bore Log Sheet

Bore Hole # 1

SOIL DESCRIPTION


Project Job No. ES137602-B

Client: Stephen & Kimberly Heremia

Dep

th (

m)

Sam

ple

Lo

cati

on

Gro

un

dw

ater

Sym

bo

ls

Ex

ten

t o

f F

ill

Gra

ph

ic L

og

Sam

ple

Lo

cati

on

Gro

un

dw

ater

Sym

bo

ls

Ex

ten

t o

f F

ill

Gra

ph

ic L

og

D.C

.P b

low

s/ 1

00 m

m

PP

Val

ue

N'q

(kP

a )

Bore Hole # 2

SOIL DESCRIPTION


Dep

th (

m)

D.C

.P b

low

s/ 1

00 m

m

PP

Val

ue

N'q

(kP

a)

U.T.P.

U.T.P.

0

1.0

1.5

0.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

0

1.0

1.5

0.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Dry to Moist & Dense Dry to Moist & Dense

Dry & WeakDry & Weak



SILTY SAND SILTY SAND

EXTREMELY WEATHERED ROCKWEATHERED ROCK

(Grey) (Grey)

Bore Hole Refusal - 1.3 m Bore Hole Refusal - 1.0 m

(White Yellow)(White Yellow)

3445448

10

140

280

120

1014Some Clay Encountered




Site Address410 EVERSLEIGH ROAD ALLIGATOR CREEK4740 Page 7 of 13



Site Identification

Test Methods: AS1289 3.1.2 (liquid limit), 3.4.1(linear shrinkage), 7.1.1(shrink-swell)

SITE CLASSIFICATION SYMBOLS DESIGN Y'S RANGE

'A'

'S'

'M'

'H1'

'H2'

'E'

'P'

'- D'

0 < Ys

0 < Ys < 20

20 < Ys < 40

60 < Ys < 75

40 < Ys < 60

Ys > 75

N/A

N/A

Classification by characteristic surface movement as per AS2780-2011

Most sand and rock sites with little or no ground movement frommoisture changes.

Slightly reactive clay sites, which may experience only slight ground

Moderately reactive clay or silt sites, which may experience moderate ground

Highly reactive clay sites, which may experience high ground movement

Highly reactive clay sites, which may experience very high ground movement

Extremely reactive clay sites, which may experience extreme ground






Problem sites which generally have soils associated with uncontrolled fill,

For classes M, H1, H2 and E this further classification may be required, based

abnormal moisture conditions (trees), soft or collapsing soils, landslip etc..

GENERALISED DESCRIPTION(Guide Only)

Section 3 - Bore Logs & Site Identification

on the depth of expected moisture change. Applied to sites with deep-seatedmoisture changes characteristic of dry climates and corresponding to a designdepth of suction change (Hs), equal to or greater than 3 metres.

Sample Location:-

Depth of Sample:-

Liquid Limit:-

Linear Shrinkage:-

Laboratory Test Results

B.H. #

Iss:-

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Note :

Site Sketch ( Not to Scale )(All Dimensions Shown are Approximate Only)

Design Y's Range

Y's + Yt :- mm

1. 2.

STREET

20 m 10 m

mm

mm

mmCalculated Y's Value -

Calculated Y't Value - Y't - the calculated potential surface movement due to the tree inducedsuction change in addition to the normal design suction change.

Y's - characteristic surface movement determined on soil propertiesonly, does NOT include the effects of trees (refer Design Y's Range)

Est. Differential Settlement - of Level 1 Controlled Fill

The estimated differential settlement is the value by which Level 1 controlled fill may further displace and is generally proportionate to the variation in fill heights.

yrsNote: The estimated differential settlement values may be re-assessed if predicted settlement figuresare provided to STA Consulting Engineers from the company that undertook the fill certification.

Age of Level 1 -Controlled Fill

24 m

WIND CLASSIFICATION

An authorised representative of STA Consulting Engineers has visited the

above site and classified the area by using AS 4055.

WIND LOADING ASSESSMENT Not Requested

Section 4 - Glossary of Terms

The following are definitions of words used in this report and attached documents.

Allowable Bearing Capacity - Maximum bearing pressure that can be sustained by the foundationfrom the proposed footing system under service loads which should avoid failure or excessivesettlement.

Silt - Fine grained soil that is non-cohesive and non-plastic when wet, can include some sand andclay.

Sand - Granular soil that may contain a small proportion of fines including silt or clay. The amount offines may be assessed as small by visual inspection or if the amount passing a 425 um sieve is 15%or less. Material with a higher proportion of fines shall be treated as silt or clay.

Clay - Fine grained soil with plastic properties when wet. Includes sandy or silty clays.

Rock - Strong material including shaley material and strongly cemented sand or gravel that does notsoften in water. Material that cannot readily be excavated by a back hoe may be taken to be rock.

Foundation - Ground which supports the building.

Footing System - General term used to refer to slabs, footings, piers and pile systems used totransfer load from the structure to the foundations.

Liquid Limit [wl] - Moisture content at which the soil passes from plastic to the liquid state asdetermined by the liquid limit test.

Linear Shrinkage [LS] - Decrease in length expressed as a percentage of the original length when asample of soil is oven dried from a moisture content of about the liquid limit as determined by thelinear shrinkage test.

Plastic Limit [wp] - Moisture content at which the soil becomes too dry to be in a plastic condition asdetermined by the plastic limit test.

Plasticity Index [Ip] - Numerical difference between the liquid limit and the plastic limit of a soil.

Services - Means all under ground services to the site including but not limited to power, telephone,sewerage, water & storm water.

Site - Block upon which the testing was carried out.

Surface Movement (Ys) - Design movement at the surface of a reactive site caused by moisturechanges.

Surface Movement Trees (Yt) - Potential surface movement due to the tree-induced suction changein addition to the normal design suction change.

Standard Residential Allotment - Means that if the lot/allotment is larger than 650 metres squarethen the client needs to identify where the proposed dwelling structure is to be erected.

Pocket Penetrometer (P.P) - Instrument used to evaluate consistency and approximate unconfinedcompressive strength of saturated cohesive soils.

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (D.C.P) - Field equipment used to determine underlying soil strengthby measuring the penetration of the device into the soil after each hammer blow.

Our project job number:137602 Page 8 of 13

STASOD.2014-14-05

5.01 Soil test / Report Parameters

It is the clients responsibility to ensure that accurate details have been conveyed to STA ConsultingEngineers prior to production of this report. STA Consulting Engineers is also not responsible forbracing and/or tie down requirements.

5.02 Site Class and Potential Surface Movement

Methods adopted are in accordance with guidelines specified in AS 2870 , appendix D. Potential surface movement and the resultant site classification are therefore inconsideration of the local depth of the zone of consideration of significant soil moisture variations andthe entire ground profile. This includes the influence of reactive clay based soils and/or the presenceof fill, as well as the effect of stable materials such as dense sands or shallow rock. Site classificationis divided into various classes, dependent on the Design Yst (potential movement). Class are;

For classes M, H1, H2 & E this furtherclassification may be required, based on thedepth of expected moisture change. Applied tosites with deep-seated moisture changescharacteristic of dry climates and correspondingto a design depth of suction change (Hs), equalor greater than 3 metres.

..........D........

Problem sites which generally have soilsassociated with uncontrolled fill, abnormalmoisture conditions, mine subsidence, landslipand/or soft, collapsing or disturbed soils.

..........P........

Extremely reactive sites can experienceextremely high amounts of ground movement.Special considerations should be taken intoaccount when building on these sites

..........E........

Highly reactive sites, can experience a very highlevel of ground movement. Additional costs aregenerally incurred in building on such sites.

..........H2........

Highly reactive sites, can experience a highlevel of ground movement. Additional costs aregenerally incurred in building on such sites.

..........H1........

Moderately reactive sites, can under gomoderate ground movement through moisturechange, May be considered as your averagesite.

..........M........

Slightly reactive sites, have only slight potentialfor ground movement through moisture change.

..........*S........

Most shallow rock sites and some sand siteswith little potential for movement throughmoisture change.

..........*A........

DescriptionSite Classification Symbols

* Additional costs can be incurred on sites due to possible difficulties inexcavations/earthworks.

Section 5 - Appendix


STASOD.2014-14-05

5.03 Field and Laboratory Procedures

Site testing is conducted in strict accordance with AS 1726, Geotechnical site investigations. Insituscala-cone penetrometer, pocket penetrometer and shear vane testing are converted to allowablebearing pressures. Refer respectively to Determination of Allowable Bearing Pressures Under SmallStructures (1977) by MJ Stockwell and Skemptonsv Theorem (1954). Clay based soils are sampledand tested for their plasticity parameters, in accordance with AS 1289 3.1.2,3.4.1 and 6.3.2. STAConsulting Engineers is also NATA (National Association Testing Authorities) accredited forappropriate test procedures.

5.04 Site Maintenance

The performance of the footings and/or slab is largely dependent upon a responsible approach by thebuilder and the owner/occupant towards vegetation and site drainage. STA Consulting Engineers hasclassified the site allowing for the trees and vegetation present at the time of testing, however if anyadditional trees or vegetation are to be planted it recommended that the following guidelines areadhered to.

It is not recommended to have trees within a distance from the structure equivalent to;

75 % of the mature tree height, for Class M 100 % of the mature tree height, for Class H1 125 % of the mature tree height, for Class H2 150 % of the mature tree height, for Class E

* Note: Where offsets cannot be obtained as indicated above, root/moisture barriers must be adopted.Alternatively the designing engineer must be notified of such a scenario prior to the completion of thefoundation recommendations.

Water must not be permitted to pond in or around footings. Garden Beds adjacent to the structure should be avoided. The development of gardens should not interfere with effective site drainage. Moderated watering of the garden is preferred to indiscriminate neglect and/or irregular

saturation. Plumbing leaks and in particular damaged storm water pipes should be repaired promptly. Grated drain inlets are to be positioned under exterior taps which are located adjacent to the

structure.

Additional Critical Issues are;

5.05 Sub Surface Mining / Slope Stability

This report does not cover slope stability. If this is required an independent assessment andinvestigation should be carried out by a qualified Geotechnical Engineer specialising in this area.

Unless STA Consulting Engineers has been instructed to the contrary, findings and recommendationscontained in this report are not relevant should existing or proposed mining projects and/or slopeinstability adversely influence the ground conditions.



STASOD.2014-14-05

5.06 Site Drainage

Site preparation must include provision for a ground fall of no less than 1 in 20 away from thestructure for a distance of at least 1 meter and where possible, a spoon drain at the base of cut banksdirecting surface drainage around and away from the footings.

5.07 Fill Material and Compaction

For totally filling the pad to level, CBR 15 or decomposed rock is recommended. Fill placed behind abrick cavity is to be of a granular base consisting of either sand, CBR 15, decomposed rock orcrusher-dust. Highly reactive clay-based soil is not recommended for use as fill. Fill is to be placed in150 mm deep layers, moistened and compacted to achieve the equivalent of 95% standardcompaction. Compaction testing is to be in accordance with AS 1289, section 5.2.1. A vibratingsheeps-foot roller is recommended for compaction of the totally-filled pad. A vibrating-plate orwacker-packer is recommended for compaction of fill restrained by a brick-cavity. Note; Fill is not tobe compacted within 500 mm of the brick cavity base (retaining wall)

5.08 Existing / Proposed Services

Existing or proposed services may have an impact on the design recommendations supplied by thedesigning engineer. Therefore it is strongly recommended that you contact the local authority andconfirm the positioning of any underground services that may be on site prior to any proposedexcavations.



STASOD.2014-14-05

5.09 Batter Angles for Embankments

Recommendations for unsupported cut/ fill batters are presented in the following table:

TABLE 3: CUT/FILL BATTER RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations in table 3 assume that: Excavations in soil are above the groundwater table; The ground surface at the crest of the excavation is horizontal; There is no surcharge at the crest of the excavation for a distance equal to the depth of the

excavation; All cuts are protected from erosion.

Batters should be reassessed if any of the above criteria are not met.



STASOD.2014-14-05

It is the builders responsibility to ensure that the site works do not undermine or place additional surcharge on any existing s tructures.

Batter angles must comply with local government requirements and are to conform as follows (Figure 1).

Batter Angles for Embankments:-

Earth Works Specifications

'L'

'L'

'H'

'H'

Fill, H = less than 2.0m

Figure 1.Natural Ground Line

Natural Ground Line

FillCut

Fill Embankment

Cut Embankment

Material Type

(Refer Bore Logs)

Stable

RockSand Silt

Clay

Firm Clay Soft ClaySoft Soils

Embankment Slopes(Height Length)

Compacted Fill

Cutting

2 : 3

8 : 1

1 : 2

2 : 3

1 : 4

1 : 4

1 : 2

1 : 1

Not Suitable Not Suitable

Not Suitable2 : 3

Note: Retaining walls or other forms of soil retaining methods must be adopted where the slope ratio is greater than thatindicated in the table above

If this can not be achieved STA Consulting Engineers must be contacted prior to any site works being undertaken.

Where any footing excavations may indicate significant variations to the ground conditions specifiedin this report then STA Consulting Engineers must be informed immediately before further workproceeds on site.

The site classification is based upon the condition of the site at the time of the investigation and doesnot take into account any proposed earthworks or proposed site preparation details unless indicated.If any extensive cutting, cut/filling or total filling is proposed, a re assessment of the site classificationwill be required.

The Yt range is based on the mature height of the trees and vegetation present at the time of testing.If any additional trees are vegetation are to be placed STA Consulting Engineers should be contactedto re-evaluate the site classification and design recommendations (if applicable).

Where this report is used by a designing engineer then an original of the complete report must beprovided to that engineer.

The information contained within this report is only applicable to the site address supplied by ourclient. Also, if the site is not a standard residential allotment, information contained in this report isonly relevant to those areas investigated.

The bore hole locations, slope directions and offsets are estimations only and should not be taken asbeing accurate or relied on for set out.

It is the clients sole responsibility to determine:

the set out of any proposed structure on the site; the location of any services.

This report does not cover termite prevention, investigation or treatment. Any queries concerningthese matters should be referred to appropriately qualified person.

It is the clients obligation to advise STA Consulting Engineers in writing of any known or suspectedpeculiarities or irregularities concerning the site.

Where STA Consulting Engineers relies upon information and documentation provided by the clientthe responsibility for the accuracy of any such information or documentation so provided is the clientssole responsibility.

Where the site is situated in a new development, it is the responsibility of the client to providecertifications of fill compaction to STA Consulting Engineers at the time of our engagement to preparethis report. Where the relevant certifications of fill compaction are not provided by the client to STAConsulting Engineers then the classification of this site may change which may increase the over allcosts of construction of the proposed structure on the site. Where the certifications of fill compactionare provided after the completion of this report, then the client will be liable for an additional fee forthe work necessary to revise the report in view of that additional documentation.

This report should only be relied upon by the client where the report is provided in an original formatand not as a copy.

This report is for the addressee only and STA Consulting Engineers specifically disclaims liability toany other party. Nothing in this report may be extracted or reprinted without the prior written consentof STA Consulting Engineers.

Section 6 - Disclaimer


STASOD.2014-14-05

Download - Smart eDA - planning.mackay.qld.gov.au€¦ · YOUR REF: N/A OUR PROJECT JOB NUMBER: GEO137602-B For Stephen & Kimberley Heremia 410 Eversleigh Road Alligator Creek Qld 4737 SITE

Top Related